View Single Post
Old March 20th 05, 08:47 PM
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a

What would be BEST, if child support guidelines become federal, would
be for a requirement that any committee formulating such guidelines
contain equal percentages of people from varying groups (i.e. NCP's,
CP's, spouses of NCP's, spouses of CP's) so that all concerns are
represented. Wouldn't it be better to "get it right" from the
beginning than to fight it later?

As a CP, I'd be willing to sit on such a committee... and my views are
not what is considered "mainstream CP."

For instance, my eldest child's father (to whom I was not married)
made it very clear that he desired I abort. I made a unilateral
decision to not and, therefore, felt fine with never asking for his
help in raising my child. I never believed he owed me or my child
anything because I made a decision which he could not. For the
record, my child never suffered from not knowing his father and had
plenty of wonderful male role models (to include my brother). It is
akin to my asking my mother how she felt about being an only child to
which her response was that she never missed what she did not have...
it seemed normal to her as it had always been. I have a personal
belief that men should have the same rights as women upon learning of
conception. In that vein, it would behoove women to seek confirmation
of pregnancy early enough to allow the man to make his decision so
that she may make hers as well. Can't find the father? Notification
procedures as in any other legal proceeding should suffice.

Then there is the issue of child support awards of divorcing couples.
I say there should be a 50/50 split in custody/expenses unless there
is a compelling reason not to. And even then, a child support award
should never go beyond the basics. Discretionary spending should
remain discretionary. If the divorce is for cause, punitive damages
should not be hidden in child support awards. Spousal support should
always be called what it is and not be hidden in child support awards.
For the record, every state has adopted a "minimal need for support"
for children already... it is in the welfare guidelines. Although I
disagree with the welfare guidelines in my state (I have a friend who
receives benefits), I can see coming up with a reasonable minimal need
and factoring it based upon each state's cost of living difference.
At any rate, a millionaire should be no more indebted to the child
support machine than a minimum wage worker... if it is truly based
upon a child's NEEDS. The millionaire may choose to make
discretionary expenditures for the children, but I seriously doubt
that the children would be living in poverty if there was no pre-nup.
And if there was, it should have included provisions for children that
would be above and beyond minimal needs.

I ALSO believe that, should guidelines go federal, that the IRS is
going to have to make some changes as well. If a man, for instance,
is ordered to pay 75% of the children needs, then he should be
entitled to 75% of the deductions. It would not be so hard for the
IRS to account for a percentage based upon a legal document.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:21:46 -0500, Werebat

This is the first chapter of an interesting book:

And it mentions an interesting idea:

"Some commentators believe that given the continually expansive role of
the federal government into heretofore matters of family law that were
the exclusive province of the states, it is surely only a matter of time
until the federal government adopts a national child support guideline

I wonder if it might not be a GOOD thing for NCPs if the federal
government DID implement a national child support guideline model. Oh,
I'm sure it would be as unfair, clunky, and cumbersome as anything the
states have now, and you can be sure it would be based on
recommendations from Policy Studies, Inc... But it would also provide
the scattered men's rights groups with a unifying target to take aim
against, instead of keeping them divided and conquered. Instead of
trying to fight 50 different sets of state laws, they'd only be
challenging one (albeit federal) set of laws.

Any comments?

- Ron ^*^